many said:
innocence until proven guilty is an admirable ideal
I do so absoluetly ****** hate this messing-about with "innocence until proven guilty"!
"Presumption of innocence" was a spectacular achievement of the modern, civil, "bourgeois" society: No longer an "absolute" emperor, but a "state above citizens" in VERY narrow confines. It protects us from arbitrary acts by authorities! We should value it, AND ****** NOT dilute that fundamental right by applying it to civil law aspects of our liking!
Please allow me to cite Wikipedia:
- With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
- With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
- The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
No room for turture, no room for a "guilty" ruling without at least basic procedures, no "L'Etat c'est moi" -- *hooray* Believe me, you would not want it any different. As a citizen. With regards to your state. Here "PoI" ends!
There is simply no "state" in WADA, TAS or UCI. And that is a good thing.
You people drag that piece of advancement down, sheepishly. Keep it out of civil law, please! Thanks.